AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was on probation and failed to report to his probation officer as required, except for his initial intake in 2017. The State moved to revoke the Defendant's probation based on this failure. The Defendant argued that his failure to report was not willful because he was in custody in Colorado for some of this time and had attempted to transfer his probation to New Mexico, which was denied due to his failure to check in with New Mexico Adult Probation and Parole.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Defendant breached a material condition of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer after his initial intake in 2017, which should be considered a willful violation.
• Defendant-Appellant (Michael Ahkee): Contended that his failure to report was not willful because he was in custody in Colorado during part of the probation period and had attempted to transfer his probation to New Mexico, which was not successful.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking the Defendant's probation based on insufficient evidence to establish that his failure to report to probation was willful.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge Zachary A. Ives, and Judge Katherine A. Wray, unanimously found no abuse of discretion in the district court's revocation of the Defendant's probation. The Court reasoned that the State had met its burden to establish a probation violation with reasonable certainty by presenting testimony from the Defendant's probation officer, which was sufficient to raise an inference of willful violation. The Court also noted that the Defendant's argument regarding his custody in Colorado and the failed attempt to transfer his probation did not sufficiently excuse his noncompliance, as he did not present evidence to rebut the presumption of willfulness. The Court emphasized that it is the Defendant's burden to come forward with evidence to excuse non-compliance once the State establishes a breach of probation. The Court concluded that the district court, acting as fact-finder, was entitled to reject the Defendant's version of events and that the appellate court would not reweigh evidence but must view it in a light most favorable to the State (paras 1-7).